EDITORIAL: Compromise essential on Baker's act to protect victims

Aug. 8—Lawmakers successfully came to agree on important pieces of legislation in the final weeks of the session that wrapped up July 31.

The state made clear its commitment to securing women's abortion rights — and not just for women here, but for women and their health care providers from all over the country who in Massachusetts will be protected from criminal charges levied by other states where the procedure is banned or restricted. Another bill Gov. Charlie Baker is expected to sign soon addresses the current pandemic-related mental health crisis and would mandate insurers to cover annual mental health exams, along with same-day psychiatric and emergency stabilization care.

But the governor's twice-failed bill — "An Act to Protect Victims of Crimes and the Public" — once again languished, and it shouldn't have. The proposal concerns dangerousness hearings and the sorts of crimes that allow prosecutors to request one.

Dangerousness hearings provide an opportunity for the prosecution to ask a judge to hold a defendant for up to 120 days without bail, based upon the risk to the public or themselves for certain violent crimes. Aggravated child rape is not among them, nor are possession of child pornography, statutory rape, or indecent assault and battery on a child, among others.

With his proposal first introduced in 2018 and most recently in December 2021, Baker says he wants to protect survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and assault and battery. We'd say it's especially important to protect children. But the Republican governor has been roadblocked by Democrats, whose key objections surround the bill's breadth, which they claim goes far beyond just updating bail laws to protect victims. They point to concerns about civil rights. The ACLU also weighed in, arguing that it undermines bail reform.

It's important to remember that a dangerousness hearing does not guarantee a person will be detained before trial. Rather it leaves the decision up to a judge, who on a case-by-case basis determines what's best for public safety.

On July 28 in an effort to compromise, Baker said he would "narrow" his plan to make it more palatable to Democrats, while also promising to sign their proposal to require the state to provide free phone calls for inmates at prisons and correctional facilities. But that wasn't enough, either. On Aug. 1, the House didn't approve changes made by the Senate and the amendment was sent to the House Committee on Bills in the Third Reading.

If that sounds like a lot of political maneuvering, it is. Yet these are devastating crimes.

Child sexual abuse forever changes the course of a person's life.

It steals away innocence and robs its victims of the ability to trust — especially when the abuser is someone they know. When violated children are traumatized. They regress socially and otherwise, grow anxious and withdrawn, act out, and suffer nightmares and generalized fears. Most will develop some level of post-traumatic stress disorder that likely will resurface in adulthood, especially if no therapy is made available.

As adults, survivors of sexual abuse are prone to anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, self-harm, sleep disorders, difficulty with intimacy, personality disorders, flashbacks and dissociation, suicidal tendencies, and other symptoms of longterm post-traumatic stress. To heal — if they ever do — they will need enormous amounts of costly therapy, often substance abuse treatment, and perhaps mental hospital visits. Perpetrators bestow their victims a lifetime of pain.

The governor's term ends Dec. 31 and when that happens "An Act to Protect Victims of Crimes and the Public" goes with him. That can't happen — even if Baker has to strip his bill to its very basics to get the buy-in of the other party. In the psychological community and beyond it is widely agreed upon that these crimes are violent crimes. It's time for a compromise.